Criminal; Third Party Culpability; Whether Jury Should Have Been Instructed
on Theory of Defense; Whether Jury Should Have Been Instructed on Complaining
Witness' Motive to Testify Falsely; Prosecutorial Impropriety. The defendant
was convicted of murder, assault, kidnapping and burglary in connection with a masked
assailant's attack on the family of the defendant's former girlfriend, Misty
Rock. Rock's mother and brother survived the attack with stab wounds; her
stepfather was killed. The kidnapping charges were predicated on the state's claim
that the defendant abducted Rock from the crime scene. The defendant appeals,
claiming the trial court deprived him of his right to present a defense by
curtailing his attempts to show that Rock was a participant in the crimes rather
than a victim. The defendant sought to show that Rock had a bad relationship
with her stepfather and that she had a financial motive to harm him. He claims
that the proffered evidence was vital to establishing his defense because it
would have impeached Rock's claim that she was a victim and shown that she had
a motive to fabricate her testimony about the defendant's actions. The
defendant contends that the evidence should have been admitted because it was
crucial to his defense theory that he was innocent of the charges of kidnapping
and burglary and to show that Rock participated in the crimes. The defendant
also argues that, because he managed to present sufficient evidence directly
connecting Rock to the crimes, the court erred in denying his request that the
jury be instructed on what he calls "hybrid third party culpability."
Alternately, he argues that the jury should have been given a "theory of
defense" instruction. He claims that such an instruction is warranted
when a defendant has not advanced a legally recognized defense but where the
defense theory, if accepted by the jury, would nonetheless rebut the elements
of the crime. The defendant also contends that the trial court erred in
denying his request that the jury be instructed on Rock's motive to testify
falsely where he claims that Rock, as a complaining witness, could have been
subjected to prosecution depending on the veracity of her account. Finally,
the defendant claims he was denied a fair trial due to prosecutorial
impropriety. He argues that the prosecutor misused evidence of an incident of
domestic violence committed by the defendant against Rock and misled the jury
concerning a statement given to the police by Rock's mother. The state argues
that the defendant's evidentiary claims amount to nothing more than an assertion
that evidence should have been admitted to show Rock's third party culpability.
The state claims that the evidence was properly excluded because the defendant
did not present evidence directly connecting Rock to the crimes.